Thanks for covering our work, and for the very fair video. It is worth emphasising a couple of points. The x1000 and x1850 comparisons are for particle mass. As to other pollutants, there is no NOx or carbon monoxide from tyres, but on the latest ICE vehicles these are very low too. What also comes off tyres are volatile organic compounds, due to what they are made of, and these chemicals can contribute to smog. The difference between the x1000 and x1850 values is that the first test was a "worst case" scenario - aggressive but legal driving compared to the exhaust maximum limit value. The second measured both tyres and tailpipe in normal driving. Either way, the tyres give off three orders of magnitude more particle mass. The emissions from BEVs are particularly problematic due to the heavy weight and greater tyre surface area. Keep up the good work on an important topic.
One claim you make is that Ford F150 Lightning and Tesla Model Y have "batteries weighing approximately 1,800 pounds" and that the higher weight is causing more tire wear and brakes dust. First of all a F150 battery is almost twice the weight of the Model Y battery. But what about the comparison of a regular gas driven Ford F350 being 7,350 pounds, compared to the Model Y weighing 4,350 pounds? That's 3,000 pounds more, so by your definition at least 3,080 more particle emission? Or maybe it's a quadratic increase, so it will be 5,140 times more? If your findings would be true, shouldn't we ban all cars over 2,500 pounds in weight?
Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W222) · 1,910-2,275 kg (4,210-5,020 lb) · 2,295-2,360 kg (5,060-5,200 lb) (Mercedes-Maybach). Thats more than a Tesla modelS Ev cars regenerate instrad og breakdisk. When you get used the regenerativ breaking you slow down earlier and that generate less break dust and less wear on tyres. This article is just extreamly fals and stupid.
You misread the article. It is comparing tailpipe *particulate mass* emissions, not pollution, to tire wear emissions. Pollution includes CO2, CO, SOx, etc., which ICE vehicles produce a lot of and EVs do not generate at all. Particulate mass is unburned carbon, etc.
unfortunately you are right😂 "Note that we are here making no comment about nitrogen oxides (and other gaseous) emissions from diesel vehicles, or the stark reality in many cities of a considerable stock of older, non-filtered diesels that are often very high particle emitters. " from the 2020 report.
EVs generate their pollution at the power plants. Power plant emissions are less regulated than automotive emissions. EVs are not pollution free, their pollution is generated elsewhere.
Except that with EVs, because of regenerative braking, you rarely touch the brakes. And major fleet managers say that their EV tyre wear is not noticeably higher than their ice vehicles. And what about a near 3 ton Toyota land cruiser? That's OK is it?
Around 6.1 million metric tons of tire dust end up in our atmosphere and waterways annually. It’s one of the most common microplastic pollutants in our oceans
It's pretty incredible to think that ICE have come so far that tires and brakes are now the leading cause of pollutants coming from a vehicle. It seems that we need a full tire redesign. Perhaps vulcanized rubber isn't the solution.
Decades ago in the Bay Area, testing near I-80 found chemicals not seen before. It turned out that Uniroyal tires had a UV sunscreen to their tires that showed up in the bay.
Not really. Tires are a good source for cement making. Most tires can be retreaded too. Recycling tires is really a people problem. Like I had a acquaintance who organized a campaign against using tires in a local cement plant. He was thinking that burning tires would be real polluting, like look at what tires do when you burn rubber in a car. Well tires when burned at high tempature do not smoke but burn clean to CO² and water. Yeah the guy got his way so our town is still getting down wind fallout of mercury, asbestos, radioactive uranium and thorium, lead and other heavy metals from the burning of coal to make the cement. This being one example where the use of used tire recycling is being stopped by unfounded public impressions.
I wonder what the pollution amount from the big trucks people seem to need, just to get groceries 🙄. Like those that drive Escalade’s, F 150s and Toyota Tundras just to get around town.
If this is correct, if normal length of premium tyres is 25.000km then devide on 1850 ev tyres last 13,5km that last only aprox 7minuttes driving on the highway. I’m not getting angry, I just find it very stupid 🙄
wow talk about twisting the facts to suit your narrative, none the less still some of those facts are still interesting. It really all comes down to how you define "Pollution", in my books CO2 coming from an ICE vehicles tailpipe is in fact still Pollution, all 4.6 metric tonnes of it per year for the average Vehicle
This video brought to you by your local oil company. Fiat 500 Electric, 1,255kg. Ford F150 gasoline 3200kg. Brake dust from regenerative braking = minimal. Oh but what about a small gasoline powered car? Go out to any highway and take a quick count 90% big trucks and SUV's. Tires on electric cars are made with harder rubber and don't wear out as fast. Statistics and surveys can say whatever you want them to say depending on which facts you include and which facts you omit.
*There's ZERO brake dust from regenerative braking! Regen braking uses the electric motor 100% to slow down and stop. That's why brakes on an electric car last the life of the car. Brakes will never ever need to be replaced. Ask any Tesla owner if they ever had to replace any brake pads. The answer will be NO all across the board.*
" Statistics and surveys can say whatever you want them to say depending on which facts you include and which facts you omit." Very true but.....used by both parties , pro or against EV - pro or against IC. Or it could be that you're convinced that the EV industry is the most honest money making industry who's only care is our health. Comparing the Fiat 500 to the Ford F150 might not be the most "clean" way to make a point because you yourself are using the strategy to omit comparable facts to come to a conclusion. Moral of the story: it all depends on what and who you believe but keep in mind that they ALL have a goal to reach trying to convince you to change your mindset , the oil industry /electrical industry/politicians. If you have more faith in politicians and electrical industry than EV is your way to go.
By the same logic, you must be brought to us by Big Chynese Lithium. In reality, the construction of tires and the size of the vehicles is beside the point. Apples to apples, EVs weigh more. Given the same size, an F-150 lighting weighs more than a regular gas F-150. A Fiat 500 Electric weighs more than a regular Fiat 500 with ICE. More weight results in more tire emissions.
@@radicalrick9587 Well, that's not saying much. EV doesn't have the same lifespan as ICE, so that doesn't mean so much to ICE buyers. What's more, you can easily apply non-friction braking to ICE. However, this story is about tires, not brakes.
As a US specific view on this issue, i agree the extra weight and torque of my ev will naturally make it burn through tires faster than a similar sized sedan, however this article states heavier and bigger vehicles, so these massive trucks and suvs are also contributing a great deal to the problem while also still emiting from the tailpipe. I don't want to come off as a "what about alist", but the problem is far more complex than just saying "ev bad" like the title and thumbnail would suggest. If you get right down to it, cars will always be a tradeoff. Trains are far more efficient, and with a decent layout very good at getting you where you need to go, with as little pollution as possible. I'll have to look into EV tires when its time to get new tires, hopefully well see some good advances in the next year or two till i need them.
In 1995, IC cars put out cleaner air via the tailpipe than was entering the engine. So any pollution controls since then are counterproductive to reducing air pollution. IT also is known that paper bags use hundreds of times the resources than are used to make plastic bags, and a lot of the waste from paper bags goes to landfill more than from plastic bags. Paper bags from fast food joints are the biggest source of roadside trash than anything else. A google search will uncover these astounding but true facts.
I din`t buy an EV to be green..i bought an EV because it cost next to nothing to use and maintain. I also only use EV specific tires and they are greate. However i think flying is the way of the future. no roads and no tire wear.
This article is just a bunch of BS. Tire particulate weights more that exhaust particulate. Ummmmm, ok I guess. To make the article more accurate it should say, an EV will go through approximately one extra set of tires over the vehicle life than a comparable ICE vehicle and most likely less brake pads due to regenerative braking.
No, because tyres chemicals are associated to lot of deseases. It is not just a matter of economy. Evs makes that particular problem worse, which is not to say ICEs are better
@@josedusolbreaking dust is contains the worst particular chemestry. Ev regen ice use breaks. Ev thst regens breaks slower and smoother that generate less tyre wear an close the non break dust. This article video is just fals information and has to be paid by ice industry.
Wouldn't the weight of a vehicle causing tire pollution be looked at in gas vehicles also. A heavy gas vehicle that someone buys is polluting more than someone buying a lighter gas vehicle. So it's not a gas or electric argument only
Then it would appear that tires for EV's would wear out 1850 times faster than gas cars or every 40000/1850=21.6 miles which is clearly not the case. Plus you act like clean air is coming out of gas cars exhaust. I don't think so
Is particulate pollution from tires in the same class as the chemical pollution from internal combustion engines? I heard Joe Rogan also talking about the brake dust issue... but again, I just want to make sure we are we comparing apples to apples...?
The particulate issue is very localized and won't result in displacing flora and fauna at a global level due to rising temps. We can manage with tire dust, we can't with co2.
So for evs if the tires wear 20% faster then the emissions are 20% worse not 1850 times worse, gas cars also have tires. Regardless, if this is true, they need to either remake the tire, get evs lighter, or do some other option that’s lighter like just staying with gas, or hydrogen electric.
This video is utter nonsense. EV tyres wear far less quickly than ICE equivalents. They also wear brakes far less quickly. Weight has very little to do with it unless the car is being driven aggressively and most EV drivers don’t do that because of the range penalty. I’ve been an EV driver since 1998 and have covered 130,000 miles in two cars, but sold both on their original (and still legal) tyres and original brake pads. Most EV drivers will have similar stories. This comment isn’t about defending EV’s over any other vehicle technology however it is necessary to speak out when videos like this misinterpret research reports and use them to mislead viewers.
My Chevrolet bolt weighs 2 or 300 pounds more than my equinox i believe. My bolt tires look like they are wearing like my equinox tires after 20 thousand miles. So i believe it really is relative in my case. I use regen braking all the time and rarely use my disc brakes so how much pollution does this save?
Tire wear, battery production and disposal, hydro electric plant methane emissions, so many factor to consider, but the only things people are looking at is fossil fuel emissions.
@@Simon-dm8zv And coal electric power plants are still 2 times higher than all fossil fuel passenger vehicles. Do you think EVs dont increase electricity consumption?
@@johnsnow94 Even on non-renewable electricity driving electric is the least polluting option. Yes, electricity demand will increase due to overall electrification of pretty much everything. In the meantime renewable energy also grows significantly. At the same time refineries consume a lot of electric energy, which will decrease. In the end it will all be worth it and total emissions will decrease.
@@Simon-dm8zv Coal electric plants ARE NOT cleaner than even fossil fuel vehicles. just compare the co2 output between the two, the data for that is available.
You're right. I'm upset at the exaggeration, number picking, selective choice of parameters but most of all at the CLICK BAIT OF 1850 TIMES MORE POLLUTING headline. No thumbs up for you! (Did you do this with a motive? If so, what?)
EV promotes are selective and like to exaggerate. They'll call their cars "green" and "zero" emissions, yet they'll ignore all the horrendous amounts pollution created form manufacturing and charging their cars.
Rolling resistance! Tread design (blocks size and arrangement). Soft to pavement grip all this and power transfer add up to … wayyy more expensive tire investment than petro powered vehicles, waay more! … Wait-caveat, I drive like granny, Never Ever go Mustang Sally on take-off (numero uno transgression of tyre wear), and refuse to Monte Carlo the curves. Hidden Costs-Furthermore, the recycling is a bad joke! Batteries, TIRES, plastics, all often just third worlded or ocean going dumped. Yes. Invest in tire education before dreaming of Saving The Planet! Not confirmed but tire guru says the original tires always best and noise abatement not just the tire block/tread design but includes foam? Dr.Don, over and out.
I searched to see if Ev are cheaper than gas-powered vehicles.No results have came back in defense of Ev’s.As usual I know who “own”these sights!!!! Just Biased!!!!!!!!
Clowns at street takeovers doing nonstop burnouts speaking to EV owners: hold my beer! Interesting findings, though. Brings even more value to companies like Porsche helping to bring Efuel options out over the next few years.
This is utter nonsense. The amount of damage done to the world as a result of fossil fuels is essentially impossible to calculate. Especially when you consider plastics, and other petroleum products. I'd spend more time researching the entity that performed this study, and who funds them. Gas powered vehicles put out more than tire dust, and EV's can use regenerative braking to slow down a majority of the time, reducing their brake dust output. Not to mention they can be powered by the sun once they are paid for. Absolutely nothing is stopping us from creating an EV supply chain that is entirely powered by the sun. There is already solar panel plants powered by solar panels. The transition to an electric future isn't free but it is infinitely more smart and efficient than combustion, fossil fuel based energy systems. I can't believe it's even talked about. Please consider how many moving parts a gasoline or diesel engine has, and how much friction all of those extra parts subtracts from overall efficiency. There's a reason that electric motors are much more power dense than combustion engines. Do any of you have any idea how much easier, and maintenance free, our cars could be? Tesla barely holds a candle to what's possible in terms EV quality, longevity, and performance potential. There is already battery cells that can be cycled 10,000 times before they need replaced, and are so safe you can drive a spike through them without any fires or cascading failures. We could potentially have a car that could last as much as 100 years on the same battery. Oil producing nations are fighting tooth and nail to keep their monopolies, and they fund studies just like this.
Exactly!! We know who is behind all these sites,just the same as it was 100years or more with Nikola Tesla.I must admit I like muscle cars,but we need to look ahead for the next generation. And I’m starting to see a change in what this next generation want.I read that gas-powered vehicles are on the decline,they’re smart and they see how greedy these (oil companies) bstrds are.They don’t care about the world only their “pockets”.😌🥴
hybrid reduces emissions more than ev, it uses the worlds limited batttery supply, to reduce emissions where they happen most across all cars throught the rest of human existence, which is in low speed high torque ( stop and go traffic) without being heavy (which is less crash safe espcially for others in crash, and weight also worsens normal wear damage to road which cost emissions etc to fix). a small but essential part of the battery cannot be recycled after short lifetime due to high energy flow into and out of battery causing normal dendrite forming battery wear damage, this is why aftermarket electric cars go down in value as much as they do. see volvo study on how it suppsoedly takes more emissiosn to make electric car. mahle says its working on recyclable electric motor. its best to have small combustion charge battery size somewhat closer to optimal size for longveity , because more battery is exponentially more energy wasted which worsens longveity, ebcause yoru nto using all thee energy all that long range ev big battery mass carries, and current ev tech is much heavier per amount fo energy vs combustion. sir joseph center enegry and others are working on converting linear combustion energy to elctric drive , and maybe assited by hydrallic drive. bio fuels, hydrogen , e fuels, propane etc are all more sustainable tech than relying more on electric battery car, so only use enough battery to reduce emisions to a resonable amount for the sake of human health etc. it will more much easier to own too, cheaper, lightweight driving fun more similar to lotus elise mid rear engine weigth distrubution(for saftey and being abel to preserve momentum around turns, which is more effceint than regenrative braking), manual steering, a car structure that can give you precise feel of how car is moving , rear wheel drive (less regenerative braking , so more longveity of battery) etc. the seats can move so that when getting out of car, person is sitting straight up with no leaning back at all, to allow more space for legs to come out , and to go back into car when needed, while allowing smaller car electric car batteries of today and the past have not and will probably not be recycled if they arnt freshly dead when 100 percent full mass recycling that is also not too chemically toxic, becomes a real thing.... the batteries end up rusting and short circuiting at landfills. less weight per structural strength and crash energy absorbing material, is more safe, including saftey to those outside the car, while also reducing normal wear damage done to roads, which requires resource use, money, emissions etc to fix.. compact 4 seater with the rear seast facing rear (i cant explain too much it wont let me, but think of sports cars, access to rear seats, less space to heat or cool, aptera motors, etc) . the seats can move so that when getting out of car, person is sitting straight up with no leaning back at all, to allow more space for legs to come out , and to go back into car when needed, while allowing smaller car . people can take multiple trips to doctor insetad of taking whole family at once (they probabyl would have to for doctor office schedualing reasons anyway), and family road trips can be had in rented vans for the few times itll ever happen . even gordon murray t27 or aptera or cree sam sort of cars, could be resonale for the increasingly mentally ill culture of decreasing long term collaborative relationships , so less need to carry much people in car. making the car move up to height of a car its about to crash into , to protect its weaker parts from the structurally stronger parts of the other car, is possible by a explosive device creating ablity to move quick enough, while having a locking device to hold it in place. even better, if it somehow is integrated with a system that can increase height to make it easier for disabled user to put stuff (including herself) into or out of car , by less user joint and muscle movement. system would also allow light offroading. toyota active sway bar sort of ting could allow less stiff bumpy ride in straight line , but allow it around turns to be able to preserve more momentum around turns, to whatever extent user wants. this can also allow car to move itself at angle that absorbs crash in safest way, as audi a8 already does. FRIC suspension, as in mclaren f1. this advanced suspension ideally should be a optional thing that can be fairly easily added at dealership if user sells car to someone else and the new owner is willing to pay for it, instead of selling new car. theoretically, to rent instead of sell the car with software to reduce monthly costs if driving in a low fuel, tire etc consumption way, can make it easier to maek high quality high budget build which makes car last as long as possible, but there would need to be legal protection against updated blagrock ESG score rules from making service provider say "were taking away the car , certain softwares in it, etc because spywaredetected you did something zatanworldorder doesnt like" .youtube channels: tony heller, suspicious observers, tom nelson, corbettreport at substack webzite , blackrogg clmate policy, dysgenic"affirmatiev action" poliyc, see ulez road use tax, etc. ntoice how they keep faiing to accuratly predict disasters with their understanding of climtc change, and cant agree on things like "are we warming or cooling more?"
@EnriqueThiele theres a video by savagese about cleaning out direct injection byproduct junk . with my concept car, maybe people would be willin gto get it cleaned if the overall ownership was low maintenance and cheap enough. the other poitns you made arnt really true, like about emissions and pressure and all that, its about balancing variables, not simply minimizing it all. or they arnt inherent to ev , like tesla lightweighting with giga die casting and all that.
Thanks for covering our work, and for the very fair video. It is worth emphasising a couple of points.
The x1000 and x1850 comparisons are for particle mass. As to other pollutants, there is no NOx or carbon monoxide from tyres, but on the latest ICE vehicles these are very low too. What also comes off tyres are volatile organic compounds, due to what they are made of, and these chemicals can contribute to smog.
The difference between the x1000 and x1850 values is that the first test was a "worst case" scenario - aggressive but legal driving compared to the exhaust maximum limit value. The second measured both tyres and tailpipe in normal driving. Either way, the tyres give off three orders of magnitude more particle mass.
The emissions from BEVs are particularly problematic due to the heavy weight and greater tyre surface area.
Keep up the good work on an important topic.
Thank you for your input and feedback. Since your company did the research, I'm grateful that you're adding your voice to this conversation.
One claim you make is that Ford F150 Lightning and Tesla Model Y have "batteries weighing approximately 1,800 pounds" and that the higher weight is causing more tire wear and brakes dust. First of all a F150 battery is almost twice the weight of the Model Y battery. But what about the comparison of a regular gas driven Ford F350 being 7,350 pounds, compared to the Model Y weighing 4,350 pounds? That's 3,000 pounds more, so by your definition at least 3,080 more particle emission? Or maybe it's a quadratic increase, so it will be 5,140 times more? If your findings would be true, shouldn't we ban all cars over 2,500 pounds in weight?
Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W222) · 1,910-2,275 kg (4,210-5,020 lb) · 2,295-2,360 kg (5,060-5,200 lb) (Mercedes-Maybach).
Thats more than a Tesla modelS
Ev cars regenerate instrad og breakdisk. When you get used the regenerativ breaking you slow down earlier and that generate less break dust and less wear on tyres. This article is just extreamly fals and stupid.
You misread the article. It is comparing tailpipe *particulate mass* emissions, not pollution, to tire wear emissions. Pollution includes CO2, CO, SOx, etc., which ICE vehicles produce a lot of and EVs do not generate at all. Particulate mass is unburned carbon, etc.
unfortunately you are right😂 "Note that we are here making no comment about nitrogen oxides (and other gaseous) emissions from diesel vehicles, or the stark reality in many cities of a considerable stock of older, non-filtered diesels that are often very high particle emitters. " from the 2020 report.
👍
CO2 is not a pollution, it' food for plants..
hmm it's hard to misread the title of the video "NEW STUDY | Electric Cars Make 1,850 Times MORE POLLUTION than Gas-Powered Vehicles??"
EVs generate their pollution at the power plants. Power plant emissions are less regulated than automotive emissions. EVs are not pollution free, their pollution is generated elsewhere.
Not to mention the typical 1060 lb. battery disposal problem at the junk yard.
They are recycled, not thrown away.
Except that with EVs, because of regenerative braking, you rarely touch the brakes. And major fleet managers say that their EV tyre wear is not noticeably higher than their ice vehicles. And what about a near 3 ton Toyota land cruiser? That's OK is it?
Well, it looks like 1850 is way more attractive than 1.2 (120%). And that is your choice of words. I guess that is what journalism means nowadays.
Around 6.1 million metric tons of tire dust end up in our atmosphere and waterways annually. It’s one of the most common microplastic pollutants in our oceans
It's pretty incredible to think that ICE have come so far that tires and brakes are now the leading cause of pollutants coming from a vehicle. It seems that we need a full tire redesign. Perhaps vulcanized rubber isn't the solution.
Incredible indeed!
The aim isn't pollution reduction: the aim is government successfully picking winners and losers: it's about control.
Diesel dummy
I would suggest to take steel wheels and run them on a steel track etc.
@@MichielvanderMeulen the goal is to compel the masses to trade their key fobs for mass transit tokens, so there you go ;)
Decades ago in the Bay Area, testing near I-80 found chemicals not seen before. It turned out that Uniroyal tires had a UV sunscreen to their tires that showed up in the bay.
Guess what it takes lots and lots of to make tires? Also, look into how difficult tires are to recycle and/or dispose of.
Not really. Tires are a good source for cement making. Most tires can be retreaded too. Recycling tires is really a people problem. Like I had a acquaintance who organized a campaign against using tires in a local cement plant. He was thinking that burning tires would be real polluting, like look at what tires do when you burn rubber in a car. Well tires when burned at high tempature do not smoke but burn clean to CO² and water. Yeah the guy got his way so our town is still getting down wind fallout of mercury, asbestos, radioactive uranium and thorium, lead and other heavy metals from the burning of coal to make the cement. This being one example where the use of used tire recycling is being stopped by unfounded public impressions.
OK I have solution, EVERYTHING/EVERYONE STAY STILL , no movement so there will be no pollutant at all! Earth would be happy!
Let's not forget break. Dust has asbestos
It does not have asbestos.
I wonder what the pollution amount from the big trucks people seem to need, just to get groceries 🙄. Like those that drive Escalade’s, F 150s and Toyota Tundras just to get around town.
Are you assuming that people who drive those never do anything that requires them?
Now imagine all this big pickups being electric and weighing 7,000-9,000lbs.
What a load of tripe
to install filter and cat on wheels?😂
The wheels on my car are a magnet for brake dust already. When I wash my car the runoff goes next door and pollutes them.
Red herring, its about CO2 not pollutants Brake? and EVs regen.....
If this is correct, if normal length of premium tyres is 25.000km then devide on 1850 ev tyres last 13,5km that last only aprox 7minuttes driving on the highway. I’m not getting angry, I just find it very stupid 🙄
wow talk about twisting the facts to suit your narrative, none the less still some of those facts are still interesting. It really all comes down to how you define "Pollution", in my books CO2 coming from an ICE vehicles tailpipe is in fact still Pollution, all 4.6 metric tonnes of it per year for the average Vehicle
This video brought to you by your local oil company. Fiat 500 Electric, 1,255kg. Ford F150 gasoline 3200kg. Brake dust from regenerative braking = minimal. Oh but what about a small gasoline powered car? Go out to any highway and take a quick count 90% big trucks and SUV's. Tires on electric cars are made with harder rubber and don't wear out as fast. Statistics and surveys can say whatever you want them to say depending on which facts you include and which facts you omit.
*There's ZERO brake dust from regenerative braking! Regen braking uses the electric motor 100% to slow down and stop. That's why brakes on an electric car last the life of the car. Brakes will never ever need to be replaced. Ask any Tesla owner if they ever had to replace any brake pads. The answer will be NO all across the board.*
@@radicalrick9587 They will change them but from rust rather than wearing out.
" Statistics and surveys can say whatever you want them to say depending on which facts you include and which facts you omit."
Very true but.....used by both parties , pro or against EV - pro or against IC.
Or it could be that you're convinced that the EV industry is the most honest money making industry who's only care is our health.
Comparing the Fiat 500 to the Ford F150 might not be the most "clean" way to make a point because you yourself are using the strategy to omit comparable facts to come to a conclusion.
Moral of the story: it all depends on what and who you believe but keep in mind that they ALL have a goal to reach trying to convince you to change your mindset , the oil industry /electrical industry/politicians.
If you have more faith in politicians and electrical industry than EV is your way to go.
By the same logic, you must be brought to us by Big Chynese Lithium.
In reality, the construction of tires and the size of the vehicles is beside the point. Apples to apples, EVs weigh more. Given the same size, an F-150 lighting weighs more than a regular gas F-150. A Fiat 500 Electric weighs more than a regular Fiat 500 with ICE. More weight results in more tire emissions.
@@radicalrick9587 Well, that's not saying much. EV doesn't have the same lifespan as ICE, so that doesn't mean so much to ICE buyers.
What's more, you can easily apply non-friction braking to ICE. However, this story is about tires, not brakes.
For 6 tons of Diesel running trough my rail, i burn 2 tyres, i think this mass difference says all, tyres just dont matter.
As a US specific view on this issue, i agree the extra weight and torque of my ev will naturally make it burn through tires faster than a similar sized sedan, however this article states heavier and bigger vehicles, so these massive trucks and suvs are also contributing a great deal to the problem while also still emiting from the tailpipe. I don't want to come off as a "what about alist", but the problem is far more complex than just saying "ev bad" like the title and thumbnail would suggest. If you get right down to it, cars will always be a tradeoff. Trains are far more efficient, and with a decent layout very good at getting you where you need to go, with as little pollution as possible.
I'll have to look into EV tires when its time to get new tires, hopefully well see some good advances in the next year or two till i need them.
Apples to apples, same size and all, EVs will weigh more. There's no way around it. With that comes more tire wear and more particulates left behind,
In 1995, IC cars put out cleaner air via the tailpipe than was entering the engine. So any pollution controls since then are counterproductive to reducing air pollution. IT also is known that paper bags use hundreds of times the resources than are used to make plastic bags, and a lot of the waste from paper bags goes to landfill more than from plastic bags. Paper bags from fast food joints are the biggest source of roadside trash than anything else. A google search will uncover these astounding but true facts.
I din`t buy an EV to be green..i bought an EV because it cost next to nothing to use and maintain. I also only use EV specific tires and they are greate. However i think flying is the way of the future. no roads and no tire wear.
ICE V and their mechanics at stealerships will clear out your bank 1850 times faster
Wow, look at me not be shocked. 🤷♂
It makes sense. I believe it.
Best selling car in US is F150 trucks while 2nd best selling car is Model Y, but they weight the same.
This article is just a bunch of BS. Tire particulate weights more that exhaust particulate. Ummmmm, ok I guess. To make the article more accurate it should say, an EV will go through approximately one extra set of tires over the vehicle life than a comparable ICE vehicle and most likely less brake pads due to regenerative braking.
No, because tyres chemicals are associated to lot of deseases. It is not just a matter of economy. Evs makes that particular problem worse, which is not to say ICEs are better
@@josedusolbreaking dust is contains the worst particular chemestry. Ev regen ice use breaks. Ev thst regens breaks slower and smoother that generate less tyre wear an close the non break dust. This article video is just fals information and has to be paid by ice industry.
Wouldn't the weight of a vehicle causing tire pollution be looked at in gas vehicles also.
A heavy gas vehicle that someone buys is polluting more than someone buying a lighter gas vehicle. So it's not a gas or electric argument only
Can you do a article about the workout battery and what is to be done with them for the ev
Then it would appear that tires for EV's would wear out 1850 times faster than gas cars or every 40000/1850=21.6 miles which is clearly not the case.
Plus you act like clean air is coming out of gas cars exhaust. I don't think so
Is particulate pollution from tires in the same class as the chemical pollution from internal combustion engines? I heard Joe Rogan also talking about the brake dust issue... but again, I just want to make sure we are we comparing apples to apples...?
The particulate issue is very localized and won't result in displacing flora and fauna at a global level due to rising temps. We can manage with tire dust, we can't with co2.
So for evs if the tires wear 20% faster then the emissions are 20% worse not 1850 times worse, gas cars also have tires. Regardless, if this is true, they need to either remake the tire, get evs lighter, or do some other option that’s lighter like just staying with gas, or hydrogen electric.
Vegan rubber is coming to offset the pollution
This video is utter nonsense. EV tyres wear far less quickly than ICE equivalents. They also wear brakes far less quickly. Weight has very little to do with it unless the car is being driven aggressively and most EV drivers don’t do that because of the range penalty. I’ve been an EV driver since 1998 and have covered 130,000 miles in two cars, but sold both on their original (and still legal) tyres and original brake pads. Most EV drivers will have similar stories. This comment isn’t about defending EV’s over any other vehicle technology however it is necessary to speak out when videos like this misinterpret research reports and use them to mislead viewers.
You have misunderstood the article. It's helpful to know what you are talking about before publishing absolute tott.
Very interesting indeed.
My Chevrolet bolt weighs 2 or 300 pounds more than my equinox i believe.
My bolt tires look like they are wearing like my equinox tires after 20 thousand miles. So i believe it really is relative in my case.
I use regen braking all the time and rarely use my disc brakes so how much pollution does this save?
You just compared a small hatchback to a larger CUV.
@@theunbreakable1587 Methane does heat the planet, probably why natural gas needs to go too.
Tire wear, battery production and disposal, hydro electric plant methane emissions, so many factor to consider, but the only things people are looking at is fossil fuel emissions.
Data is clear: total greenhouse gas life cycle emissions of EVs are far lower.
@@Simon-dm8zv And coal electric power plants are still 2 times higher than all fossil fuel passenger vehicles. Do you think EVs dont increase electricity consumption?
@@johnsnow94 Even on non-renewable electricity driving electric is the least polluting option. Yes, electricity demand will increase due to overall electrification of pretty much everything. In the meantime renewable energy also grows significantly.
At the same time refineries consume a lot of electric energy, which will decrease. In the end it will all be worth it and total emissions will decrease.
@@Simon-dm8zv Coal electric plants ARE NOT cleaner than even fossil fuel vehicles. just compare the co2 output between the two, the data for that is available.
@@Simon-dm8zv 60% of power grid in the US is coal and emits 40% of all co2, almost twice as much and GASOLINE passenger vehicles.
Cars make 10x the pollution to produce
Lol the semantics are out of control
You're right. I'm upset at the exaggeration, number picking, selective choice of parameters but most of all at the CLICK BAIT OF 1850 TIMES MORE POLLUTING headline. No thumbs up for you! (Did you do this with a motive? If so, what?)
EV promotes are selective and like to exaggerate. They'll call their cars "green" and "zero" emissions, yet they'll ignore all the horrendous amounts pollution created form manufacturing and charging their cars.
First off I'm not an EV owner. I just know that propaganda and misinformation are running rapid and you sir are a catalyst for it in this video.
Rolling resistance! Tread design (blocks size and arrangement). Soft to pavement grip all this and power transfer add up to … wayyy more expensive tire investment than petro powered vehicles, waay more! … Wait-caveat, I drive like granny, Never Ever go Mustang Sally on take-off (numero uno transgression of tyre wear), and refuse to Monte Carlo the curves.
Hidden Costs-Furthermore, the recycling is a bad joke! Batteries, TIRES, plastics, all often just third worlded or ocean going dumped. Yes. Invest in tire education before dreaming of Saving The Planet! Not confirmed but tire guru says the original tires always best and noise abatement not just the tire block/tread design but includes foam? Dr.Don, over and out.
I searched to see if Ev are cheaper than gas-powered vehicles.No results have came back in defense of Ev’s.As usual I know who “own”these sights!!!!
Just Biased!!!!!!!!
I've read that the window cleaning solution is also more pollutant than the engine! No really!
EVs are not lowering the pollution, they are just hide the pollution elsewhere. (Other hidden cost)
wrong - clickbait
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 *Oh you people with your FUD stuff just make me crack up laughing so hard.* 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Clowns at street takeovers doing nonstop burnouts speaking to EV owners: hold my beer! Interesting findings, though. Brings even more value to companies like Porsche helping to bring Efuel options out over the next few years.
Those particulates don't end up warming the planet like co2.
how dare you
Rubbish
This is utter nonsense. The amount of damage done to the world as a result of fossil fuels is essentially impossible to calculate. Especially when you consider plastics, and other petroleum products. I'd spend more time researching the entity that performed this study, and who funds them. Gas powered vehicles put out more than tire dust, and EV's can use regenerative braking to slow down a majority of the time, reducing their brake dust output. Not to mention they can be powered by the sun once they are paid for.
Absolutely nothing is stopping us from creating an EV supply chain that is entirely powered by the sun. There is already solar panel plants powered by solar panels. The transition to an electric future isn't free but it is infinitely more smart and efficient than combustion, fossil fuel based energy systems. I can't believe it's even talked about. Please consider how many moving parts a gasoline or diesel engine has, and how much friction all of those extra parts subtracts from overall efficiency. There's a reason that electric motors are much more power dense than combustion engines. Do any of you have any idea how much easier, and maintenance free, our cars could be? Tesla barely holds a candle to what's possible in terms EV quality, longevity, and performance potential. There is already battery cells that can be cycled 10,000 times before they need replaced, and are so safe you can drive a spike through them without any fires or cascading failures. We could potentially have a car that could last as much as 100 years on the same battery.
Oil producing nations are fighting tooth and nail to keep their monopolies, and they fund studies just like this.
The future will only be electric if that electricity is from a nuclear source. Nothing else will do.
It's not impossible, you just have no real evidence.
Exactly!!
We know who is behind all these sites,just the same as it was 100years or more with Nikola Tesla.I must admit I like muscle cars,but we need to look ahead for the next generation.
And I’m starting to see a change in what this next generation want.I read that gas-powered vehicles are on the decline,they’re smart and they see how greedy these (oil companies)
bstrds are.They don’t care about the world only their “pockets”.😌🥴
😎👍🧂
Who paid you to make this?
hybrid reduces emissions more than ev, it uses the worlds limited batttery supply, to reduce emissions where they happen most across all cars throught the rest of human existence, which is in low speed high torque ( stop and go traffic) without being heavy (which is less crash safe espcially for others in crash, and weight also worsens normal wear damage to road which cost emissions etc to fix). a small but essential part of the battery cannot be recycled after short lifetime due to high energy flow into and out of battery causing normal dendrite forming battery wear damage, this is why aftermarket electric cars go down in value as much as they do. see volvo study on how it suppsoedly takes more emissiosn to make electric car. mahle says its working on recyclable electric motor. its best to have small combustion charge battery size somewhat closer to optimal size for longveity , because more battery is exponentially more energy wasted which worsens longveity, ebcause yoru nto using all thee energy all that long range ev big battery mass carries, and current ev tech is much heavier per amount fo energy vs combustion. sir joseph center enegry and others are working on converting linear combustion energy to elctric drive , and maybe assited by hydrallic drive. bio fuels, hydrogen , e fuels, propane etc are all more sustainable tech than relying more on electric battery car, so only use enough battery to reduce emisions to a resonable amount for the sake of human health etc. it will more much easier to own too, cheaper, lightweight driving fun more similar to lotus elise mid rear engine weigth distrubution(for saftey and being abel to preserve momentum around turns, which is more effceint than regenrative braking), manual steering, a car structure that can give you precise feel of how car is moving , rear wheel drive (less regenerative braking , so more longveity of battery) etc. the seats can move so that when getting out of car, person is sitting straight up with no leaning back at all, to allow more space for legs to come out , and to go back into car when needed, while allowing smaller car electric car batteries of today and the past have not and will probably not be recycled if they arnt freshly dead when 100 percent full mass recycling that is also not too chemically toxic, becomes a real thing.... the batteries end up rusting and short circuiting at landfills. less weight per structural strength and crash energy absorbing material, is more safe, including saftey to those outside the car, while also reducing normal wear damage done to roads, which requires resource use, money, emissions etc to fix.. compact 4 seater with the rear seast facing rear (i cant explain too much it wont let me, but think of sports cars, access to rear seats, less space to heat or cool, aptera motors, etc) . the seats can move so that when getting out of car, person is sitting straight up with no leaning back at all, to allow more space for legs to come out , and to go back into car when needed, while allowing smaller car . people can take multiple trips to doctor insetad of taking whole family at once (they probabyl would have to for doctor office schedualing reasons anyway), and family road trips can be had in rented vans for the few times itll ever happen . even gordon murray t27 or aptera or cree sam sort of cars, could be resonale for the increasingly mentally ill culture of decreasing long term collaborative relationships , so less need to carry much people in car.
making the car move up to height of a car its about to crash into , to protect its weaker parts from the structurally stronger parts of the other car, is possible by a explosive device creating ablity to move quick enough, while having a locking device to hold it in place. even better, if it somehow is integrated with a system that can increase height to make it easier for disabled user to put stuff (including herself) into or out of car , by less user joint and muscle movement. system would also allow light offroading. toyota active sway bar sort of ting could allow less stiff bumpy ride in straight line , but allow it around turns to be able to preserve more momentum around turns, to whatever extent user wants. this can also allow car to move itself at angle that absorbs crash in safest way, as audi a8 already does. FRIC suspension, as in mclaren f1. this advanced suspension ideally should be a optional thing that can be fairly easily added at dealership if user sells car to someone else and the new owner is willing to pay for it, instead of selling new car. theoretically, to rent instead of sell the car with software to reduce monthly costs if driving in a low fuel, tire etc consumption way, can make it easier to maek high quality high budget build which makes car last as long as possible, but there would need to be legal protection against updated blagrock ESG score rules from making service provider say "were taking away the car , certain softwares in it, etc because spywaredetected you did something zatanworldorder doesnt like" .youtube channels: tony heller, suspicious observers, tom nelson, corbettreport at substack webzite , blackrogg clmate policy, dysgenic"affirmatiev action" poliyc, see ulez road use tax, etc. ntoice how they keep faiing to accuratly predict disasters with their understanding of climtc change, and cant agree on things like "are we warming or cooling more?"
Succinct and to the point!
you should learn to write before making comments like this otherwise no one is going to take what you wrote seriously
@EnriqueThiele theres a video by savagese about cleaning out direct injection byproduct junk . with my concept car, maybe people would be willin gto get it cleaned if the overall ownership was low maintenance and cheap enough. the other poitns you made arnt really true, like about emissions and pressure and all that, its about balancing variables, not simply minimizing it all. or they arnt inherent to ev , like tesla lightweighting with giga die casting and all that.
Dude read the article before you post a video make sure to read